There is a distinct timeline that explains everything and I even helped by linking you both to the how and why. Interesting that the details are so easily hand waved away by you. Must not have been important enough to expand on in the attempt to discredit my point regarding BDS and how it is directly related to history.

Member

It's a very complex era which unfortunately ended in total carnage on all sides. The lesson learned should be "never again", which in relation to this thread (i.e. people randomly accusing Trump of being an "evil white racist") should mean a little bit of perspective is required & such blanket statements whereby they de-facto vilify Trump & the Republicans with one of the most ill-advised, overused & misused labels of all time ("racist") can only lead to a further anger & antagonism between both sides. America's political divide is a literal power keg right now, in case some have forgotten. From my chair here practically all the literal hate comes from a far left which is on a warpath in their imbecilic "culture war" in which pretty much everyone who doesn't follow their extreme worldview is dogpiled & constantly attacked.

Translation: "please reveal your hidden Swastika in your underpants so I can scream for a mod to ban you". How about no? People can have an interest in an historical era without actually having bias or an urge to constantly virtue signal. Not everything is permanently politicized, especially when I'm just eating my breakfast whilst reading some history online.

Member

Translation: "please reveal your hidden Swastika in your underpants so I can scream for a mod to ban you". How about no? People can have an interest in an historical era without actually having bias or an urge to constantly virtue signal. Not everything is permanently politicized, especially when I'm just eating my breakfast whilst reading some history online.

Member

I already made it. I didn't even know why he was bringing up a trade war from almost a century ago without giving all the context. I double checked after I posted. I found the tweet about warning labels somewhere in Europe. The parallel he is trying to make is dubious.

Member

I already made it. I didn't even know why he was bringing up a trade war from almost a century ago without giving all the context. I double checked after I posted. I found the tweet about warning labels somewhere in Europe. The parallel he is trying to make is dubious.

The context is something that is innate when discussing the NSDAP and Jews in Germany. The parallel I made isn't dubious as we have seen this happen previously in history in Europe with unsavory actions towards Jewish owned businesses.

Member

The context is something that is innate when discussing the NSDAP and Jews in Germany. The parallel I made isn't dubious as we have seen this happen previously in history in Europe with unsavory actions towards Jewish owned businesses.

WW2 & the rise of the Third Reich came directly from the Versailles Treaty, i.e. something which was inherently belligerent towards Germany. This isn't a "conspiracy" or biased viewpoint, it's the accepted historical truth of the era. Likewise the manner in which Germans came to view Jews as responsible for that + the proportion of Jews present in international finance & the higher echelons of the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union at the time is also well documented (Putin himself shed light on that issue recently). This topic only surfaced in this thread because someone claimed the European Union's proposed "made in Israel/Israeli settlements" label on products was somehow similar to NS era Germany.

It's not, because it's not even a boycott & the comparison with the 1930's is null & void because relations between Jews & Germans were extremely bad at the time (Jews boycotting Germany & attacking its interests abroad, whilst Germans boycotted Jews & attacked their interests in Germany) . This also has nothing to do with the actual topic itself, i.e. Trump being labelled a "racist", something in & of itself entirely unfounded considering A/Trump is an Israel lover & literal Zionist & B/he has created jobs for blacks in America & certainly doesn't advocate for racial purity laws & eugenics.

Patient MembeR

Anybody who isn't completely mayonnaise-addled knows he's racist but given that a healthy proportion of America actually is terminally mayo sapien, we get poll results like this

"Sure, he called Mexicans rapists and refused to rent real estate to black people back in the day and called African countries 'shithole' countries and regularly supports and is supported by white supremacist movements... but is he REALLY racist??"

Ugh, fake news. Lawns are not a symbol of racism, nor are they bad for global warming.

Lawns are an excellent organism to sequester carbon yearly and to help prevent flooding and water-loss (from evaporation). One of the main reasons why we gravitate toward lawns is because they're extremely hardy (can be cut weekly) and protect the soil yet don't provide much living space for what would be considered "pest animals".

I've learned this stuff from both ends -- as a chem applicator for lawn care and from the organic/natural Ag perspective -- and lawns are super useful for sequestering carbon. The problem is many people use a lot of chemicals and additives which greatly diminishes a lawn's ability to sequester carbon. Even in arid regions where lawns use up a ton of water, we could reduce water needs and actually start the process of succession (pictured above) with proper mgmt.

Member

WW2 & the rise of the Third Reich came directly from the Versailles Treaty, i.e. something which was inherently belligerent towards Germany. This isn't a "conspiracy" or biased viewpoint, it's the accepted historical truth of the era. Likewise the manner in which Germans came to view Jews as responsible for that + the proportion of Jews present in international finance & the higher echelons of the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union at the time is also well documented (Putin himself shed light on that issue recently). This topic only surfaced in this thread because someone claimed the European Union's proposed "made in Israel/Israeli settlements" label on products was somehow similar to NS era Germany.

It's not, because it's not even a boycott & the comparison with the 1930's is null & void because relations between Jews & Germans were extremely bad at the time (Jews boycotting Germany & attacking its interests abroad, whilst Germans boycotted Jews & attacked their interests in Germany) . This also has nothing to do with the actual topic itself, i.e. Trump being labelled a "racist", something in & of itself entirely unfounded considering A/Trump is an Israel lover & literal Zionist & B/he has created jobs for blacks in America & certainly doesn't advocate for racial purity laws & eugenics.

BDS, like the aforementioned historical boycott of Jewish business in Germany, is based in antisemitism. It's relevant and correlates to the historical events I posted about. Diminishing the German treatment of the Jews as, they had it coming (my paraphrase of you and yosh's beating around the bush and glossing over it all), is a gross misinterpretation of history. Pointing it out is making sure it doesn't happen again.

I don't believe Trump is racist, but I'm not so sure about either of you two at this moment.

Member

In a world where clean lawns, people who believe in national borders & even babies are labelled "racist", I think I'll take my chances with whatever definition of the word you apply to me here in NeoGAF on this uneventful Wednesday August 14th, 2019.

Member

Member

In a world where clean lawns, people who believe in national borders & even babies are labelled "racist", I think I'll take my chances with whatever definition of the word you apply to me here in NeoGAF on this uneventful Wednesday August 14th, 2019.

Member

"Russia conspiracy blew up in our dumb face so lets brainstorm and switch gears on how we can sell trump as the worst racist till election"

Fakenews peddling bastards
manipulated and played by the media...again... what a SHOCK i mean its only example nr what? 342?
How is the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? or something like that.. yeah how many tries do you guys need?

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by BREITBART.COM: This week on Crooked Media’s “Pod Save America,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said many of President Donald Trump’s supporters were not...

Member

Quite the contrary. Trump basically won because blacks didn't come out and vote for Hillary like they did for Obama. If that changes a bit, Trump is going to be under water in some battleground states.

While we sit here and roll our eyes, the media is firing up the black voters.

Except the left politicians have gone far too radical this time and Trump stands a good chance of picking up an additional state in Minnesota this time that he only lost by 40,000 votes and Gary Johnson won't be taking any of those this time.

The democratic voter turnout could be less this time and if the economy holds, Trump will get more indy votes in 2020 and some former Democrats.

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by BREITBART.COM: This week on Crooked Media’s “Pod Save America,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said many of President Donald Trump’s supporters were not...

And these are just the Republicans that have explicitly used the R word. There are plenty more that dance around the word, calling his racist comments deplorable, outrageous, inappropriate, disgusting, etc. The R word is so very triggering to conservatives that Republicans are essentially terrified to use it publicly, even if it's a perfect descriptor.

It's almost like they have preformed talking points specifically built around blaming Jews for what happened in Nazi Germany. I greatly anticipate all the conservatives angry in the Tlaib and Omar thread coming into this one and absolutely destroying these two users for their obvious antisemitism. *cue crickets*

Lawns are an excellent organism to sequester carbon yearly and to help prevent flooding and water-loss (from evaporation). One of the main reasons why we gravitate toward lawns is because they're extremely hardy (can be cut weekly) and protect the soil yet don't provide much living space for what would be considered "pest animals".

I've learned this stuff from both ends -- as a chem applicator for lawn care and from the organic/natural Ag perspective -- and lawns are super useful for sequestering carbon. The problem is many people use a lot of chemicals and additives which greatly diminishes a lawn's ability to sequester carbon. Even in arid regions where lawns use up a ton of water, we could reduce water needs and actually start the process of succession (pictured above) with proper mgmt.

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by BREITBART.COM: This week on Crooked Media’s “Pod Save America,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said many of President Donald Trump’s supporters were not...

Paging @JordanN. So let's assume IQ is correlated strongly with college education. Those who have higher IQs are by definition (since America is a bootstrap meritocracy) more likely to have gone to college and gotten a degree. In fact the average IQ of a college student is 120, much higher than the average. Agreeing to this, it's a fact that if you're college educated you're significantly more likely to have voted for Hillary over Trump (60/40 split). So those with higher IQs generally voted for Hillary overall. And since you tie in IQ to other factors, all beneficial, like prosperity and crime rates and blah blah blah, does this mean Hillary was the objectively better choice? Aren't those with higher IQs the only real "objective" measure we have for what the "best" choice is for society?

(disclaimer: I don't actually believe this, I'm just trying to fuck up @JordanN in particular because his IQ shit gets on my nerves)

And these are just the Republicans that have explicitly used the R word. There are plenty more that dance around the word, calling his racist comments deplorable, outrageous, inappropriate, disgusting, etc. The R word is so very triggering to conservatives that Republicans are essentially terrified to use it publicly, even if it's a perfect descriptor.

Trump was racist for saying a Latino Judge couldn't rule on Trump University due to his race.

It's almost like they have preformed talking points specifically built around blaming Jews for what happened in Nazi Germany. I greatly anticipate all the conservatives angry in the Tlaib and Omar threat coming into this thread and absolutely destroying these two users for their obvious antisemitism. *cue crickets*

Your counterpoint is explicitly stated in the first two lines of the NYT article:

So the only fake news here is the Brietbart article that you decided to take at face value, from a user who literally posts Nazi propaganda in a thread on how Trump isn't actually racist.

It's like I'm in the goddamn twilight zone. Or... what is it.... it's on the tip of my tongue.... clown world?

Even just the first two links are bogus so I’m not wasting time on the rest. Paul Ryan said the comment was racist, not that Trump himself was racist. By that logic, you should also be calling Ilhan Omar racist. The Lindsay Graham article explicitly says:

“CNN's Jake Tapper shows how Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) once called then-candidate Donald Trump racist during the 2016 presidential race, only to change his opinion in 2019.”

Do you even read the shit you link or just mass copy from google searches and expect others to bow down at your brilliance without critically questioning it? Here’s the real kicker: both of those comments from Ryan and Graham were made in 2016 during the presidential campaign when they were trying to prevent Trump from winning. You wouldn’t omit this context on purpose, would you? Surely not.

Gold Member

Even just the first two links are bogus so I’m not wasting time on the rest. Paul Ryan said the comment was racist, not that Trump himself was racist. By that logic, you should also be calling Ilhan Omar racist. The Lindsay Graham article explicitly says:

“CNN's Jake Tapper shows how Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) once called then-candidate Donald Trump racist during the 2016 presidential race, only to change his opinion in 2019.”

Do you even read the shit you link or just mass copy from google searches and expect others to bow down at your brilliance without critically questioning it? Here’s the real kicker: both of those comments from Ryan and Graham were made in 2016 during the presidential campaign when they were trying to prevent Trump from winning. You wouldn’t omit this context on purpose, would you? Surely not.

So you're subdividing between "person who makes racist comments" and "person who is racist"? Christ dude. Talk in practical terms instead of dividing hairs in this clearly superficial way. And yes, Omar was racist when she said the Benjamines comment. Which is why she apologized for offending Jews. That would be the difference between someone like her and someone like Trump.

Secondly, yes Graham changed his opinion, because Trump is now in control of a sizable % of the Republican voter base. Calling Trump racist while in a red state or district is a recipe for destruction, as Trump will use his twitter platform to as a giant megaphone against you. Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist.

Gold Member

I mean, you're just mind reading in the opposite direction: that Graham was lying for self-interest when he called Trump racist. Mine is that he's lying for self-interest when he says Trump isn't. His original accusation of racism was probably drawn primarily from Trump's Birtherism crusade (which was still ongoing even in 2015), as the other stuff didn't happen yet.

No, I pointed out the different context of Graham accusing Trump of racism during the 2016 campaign vs. 2019. I was intimating that you should adjust your own interpretation of the comments to suit the context. I made no suggestion of what Graham was thinking. You, on the other hand, made multiple explicit statements of what Graham was thinking:

Secondly, yes Graham changed his opinion, because Trump is now in control of a sizable % of the Republican voter base. Calling Trump racist while in a red state or district is a recipe for destruction, as Trump will use his twitter platform to as a giant megaphone against you. Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist.

Gold Member

No, I pointed out the different context of Graham accusing Trump of racism during the 2016 campaign vs. 2019. I was intimating that you should adjust your own interpretation of the comments to suit the context. I made no suggestion of what Graham was thinking. You, on the other hand, made multiple explicit statements of what Graham was thinking:

Fair enough. But additionally, I didn't make multiple explicit statements, just one: that Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't racist. I actually had it originally phrase as "If you think Graham changed his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist, you're fooling yourself" but then I tried to make it less of a personal attack. That's what I get for rephrasing things to be less personally aggressive

Formerly 'matt404au'

Fair enough. But additionally, I didn't make multiple explicit statements, just one: that Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't racist. I actually had it originally phrase as "If you think Graham changed his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist, you're fooling yourself" but then I tried to make it less of a personal attack. That's what I get for rephrasing things to be less personally aggressive

Secondly, yes Graham changed his opinion, because Trump is now in control of a sizable % of the Republican voter base. Calling Trump racist while in a red state or district is a recipe for destruction, as Trump will use his twitter platform to as a giant megaphone against you. Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist.

Do you think those two assumptions are unreasonable? Is it more reasonable to take Lindsey Graham at his word? You seem to be playing the role of a neutral arbiter in service to no actual point of view. Do you think no point of view is reasonable to hold over another unless we stick a mind-reading machine on Graham to find out the facts? I spoke my mind on Graham. But then I'm not supposed to do that because it was stated too strongly, apparently.

Formerly 'matt404au'

Do you think those two assumptions are unreasonable? Is it more reasonable to take Lindsey Graham at his word? You seem to be playing the role of a neutral arbiter in service to no actual point of view. Do you think no point of view is reasonable to hold over another unless we stick a mind-reading machine on Graham to find out the facts? I spoke my mind on Graham. But then I'm not supposed to do that because it was stated too strongly, apparently.

Member

An owner of a sports team is considered Racist. Because a team is made up of players, hence the owner is comparable to a plantation owner with salves. It is no longer politically correct to refer to them as owners, ‘governor’ needs to be used.

Never mind sports is business and the players are employed.

Tell me, what meaning does Racist even have in this ridiculous clown world.

Member

"Russia conspiracy blew up in our dumb face so lets brainstorm and switch gears on how we can sell trump as the worst racist till election"

Fakenews peddling bastards
manipulated and played by the media...again... what a SHOCK i mean its only example nr what? 342?
How is the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? or something like that.. yeah how many tries do you guys need?

Member

So you're subdividing between "person who makes racist comments" and "person who is racist"? Christ dude. Talk in practical terms instead of dividing hairs in this clearly superficial way. And yes, Omar was racist when she said the Benjamines comment. Which is why she apologized for offending Jews. That would be the difference between someone like her and someone like Trump.

Secondly, yes Graham changed his opinion, because Trump is now in control of a sizable % of the Republican voter base. Calling Trump racist while in a red state or district is a recipe for destruction, as Trump will use his twitter platform to as a giant megaphone against you. Graham didn't change his mind because he suddenly saw the light and discovered Trump isn't actually racist.

Banned

Except the left politicians have gone far too radical this time and Trump stands a good chance of picking up an additional state in Minnesota this time that he only lost by 40,000 votes and Gary Johnson won't be taking any of those this time.

The democratic voter turnout could be less this time and if the economy holds, Trump will get more indy votes in 2020 and some former Democrats.

The Democrats are going to run to the center once a candidate is decided. It happens every time. And as far as counting on MN or even WI for that matter, that may be a bit premature. Trump is not doing very well in the midwest. People are not happy with him in WI for Foxconn. There is going to be some trouble for him there.

President Donald Trump launched his 2020 re-election campaign Tuesday at a raucous rally in Orlando. But the road to the White House goes through the Midwest, where he unexpectedly won traditionally blue states in 2016. And nearly three years later, it's a lot more bumpy.